The Two Witnesses

[veteran]

Those are not 'war stories'. They are true documented and verified events. And the Desmond Doss account in particular, is an obvious miraculous event showing God's protection upon His people, even in battle against Christ's enemies.

The two most plagued drug problem squadrons in the USAF when I was in, were the Hospital squadron and the Air Police squadron.

 

[whirlwind]

I haven't read all the replies...only part of the first page but...on the topic of the two witnesses; we are among the two groups of witnesses. It doesn't refer to two entities at all. Much as "the woman" is the church, the two witnesses are two groups.


.



.

 

[tgwprophet]

Whirlwind wrote: "I haven't read all the replies...only part of the first page but...on the topic of the two witnesses; we are among the two groups of witnesses. It doesn't refer to two entities at all. Much as "the woman" is the church, the two witnesses are two groups."

Sorry, Whirlwind, but they are two people, not groups. They are individuals chosed by God. They are gentiles, they are causaions, they are... well, some of the rest of this will remain a secret for now.. Anyway, being gentile means the Jews will not accept them. Their travels will not be confined to Israel. They may make speeches on television or internet but will most likely not be making speeches to religious chruches, tent revivals or such. Their duty is to attack the world for its wicked ways and to reveal the anti-christ. They are not the Old and New Testiment, but mere men, selected of God, willing to do God's chore. They simply do not allow their personal inferriorities to have diminished their acceptance as a prophet. God chose the weak to confound the mighty.
You who consider yourself mighty... may be confounded.

God does not give rewards, then take them away, so.... Elijah and Enoch are not the 2 winesses, It is appointed for all men to die... Ok so maybe Enoch and Elijah return to earth, AFTER Armageddon. Maybe in their human imperfections they were allowed to miss that appointment. Possibly, once one is "made" a prophet (even if before birth) - the term prophet superceeds (replaces)the word "men." The Gentile Christains are grafted unto the vine of the Jews... The 2 witnesses being gentile - provide that proof. As such, I will allow God to reveal that part.

In the final analysis it will be noted that others with all their own deficiencies (inculding faith) can still aspire to be one of God's prophets. In the End...those thnking they were just not righteous enough or good enough to be a prophet will then understand that in Jesus we find ourselves righteous, cleansed, pure (re-born) and with all the ability to be a prophet of God and only their own personal self restrictions deny them the ability to obtain such a position. Welcome to freedom.

Most seem willing to complicate things to such a degree as no answer can be obtained, yet when Jesus taught it was the simplistic nature of his teachings that revealed great wisdom. keep this in mind when trying to understand Revelation prophecy. Why is so many here willing to disperse distain towards others? Are we not all here in a quest for teaching AND learning? Is it not our objective to rightly understand Revelation? Lets temper our criticism to a consructive ordinance so when it explodes - truth is revealed. God Bless

 

[veteran]

You're both right, they are two specific individuals, along with 2 Churches (remember what Christ the candlesticks represent at the end of Rev.1).

 

[us2are1]

[sup]Revelation 11:3[/sup] And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will be clothed in burlap and will prophesy during those 1,260 days.”

Anyone have an opinion (or conviction if you have one) about who these two witnesses will be? One of my teachers believes it will be Moses and Elijah. That would make sense, since they were involved in a lot of the things the two witnesses will do.

My personal opinion is that it will be Enoch and Elijah, since they are the only two men recorded whom never experienced physical death, and it made sense to me that that would be a requirement to share in Christ's physical death in order to share in His resurrection. It would make sense if God saved these two righteous individuals for a specific mission he appointed just for this time.

Anyone have any other thoughts about it, or whether someone has a metaphorical viewpoint/whatever, or if it could be two random guys we never heard about.

This is the thread on this forum that explains the two witnesses of the Lord. They come to destroy the world and start the transition from the world into the kingdom of God here on earth.

http://www.christian...__fromsearch__1






.

 

[tgwprophet]

VETERAN wrote: You're both right, they are two specific individuals, along with 2 Churches (remember what Christ the candlesticks represent at the end of Rev.1)
They.. the two witnesses are not OF the seven. They are two very real individual people. This is not a guess... place my head in a noose and charge me with saying it is a guess and I will maintain it is no guess. Then try to hang me for that and I will merely laugh knowing full well you cannot.

I did not mean to write this so harshly, except to emphasize that this is not a guess. Neither is it a result of my studies.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe we should use the definitions God's inspired word gave us for candlesticks and olive trees to determine who the two witnesses are.
Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
What does Scripture tell us candlesticks are?
Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
So if seven candlesticks are seven churches wouldn’t two candlesticks be two churches?
What does Scripture tells us olive trees are? (Words in blue parenthesis added for clarity)
Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches(Jewish people) be broken off, and thou (the Gentile believer), being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.
Romans 11:24 For if thou (the Gentiles) wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree (the Jews): how much more shall these (the Jews), which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

So the olive trees represent the Jews and Christians.
2 olive trees + 2 candlesticks = The Jewish and Christian churches (remember to John Churches weren’t buildings but people). So doesn’t it stand to reason that the two witnesses would be the Jewish and Christian believers?

 

[Angelina]

So if seven candlesticks are seven churches wouldn’t two candlesticks be two churches?
What does Scripture tells us olive trees are? (Words in blue parenthesis added for clarity)
Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches(Jewish people) be broken off, and thou (the Gentile believer), being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.
Romans 11:24 For if thou (the Gentiles) wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree (the Jews): how much more shall these (the Jews), which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

So the olive trees represent the Jews and Christians.

no...I don't think so, because the olive tree is one tree, not two separate trees. :huh:

Bless ya!

 

[veteran]

VETERAN wrote: "You're both right, they are two specific individuals, along with 2 Churches (remember what Christ the candlesticks represent at the end of Rev.1)"

They.. the two witnesses are not OF the seven. They are two very real individual people. This is not a guess... place my head in a noose and charge me with saying it is a guess and I will maintain it is no guess. Then try to hang me for that and I will merely laugh knowing full well you cannot.

I did not mean to write this so harshly, except to emphasize that this is not a guess. Neither is it a result of my studies.

Read again what I wrote, for I never said the two witnesses were not two real individual people. Instead I agreed, but with both of you. Here's why...


Rev 11:4
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
(KJV)

Rev 1:20
20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
(KJV)

"the two olive trees" = points back to Zechariah 4, these represent two individual persons to appear physically in Jerusalem.

"the two candlesticks" = points to two of the seven churches which Christ identified, for He defined the seven candlesticks as representing the seven churches.


Another way to know this is with what they are to do...

Rev 11:3
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
(KJV)


Mark 13:9-11
9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them.
10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)

Some of Christ's elect that represent two of the seven Churches (candlesticks per Rev.1:20) are going to be delivered up to give a Testimony by The Holy Spirit for Jesus Christ. Our Lord Jesus gave that within the 7 signs of the end, which are the seals of Rev.6.

Thus, two individual prophets are to appear in Jerusalem to prophesy (give witness), and ALSO, some of Christ's elect that symbolically represent two of the seven Churches are to be delivered up to also give a Testimony for Christ during that time. That's why the "and" separater exists in the Rev.11:4 verse.

 

[us2are1]

I believe we should use the definitions God's inspired word gave us for candlesticks and olive trees to determine who the two witnesses are.
Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
What does Scripture tell us candlesticks are?
Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
So if seven candlesticks are seven churches wouldn’t two candlesticks be two churches?
What does Scripture tells us olive trees are? (Words in blue parenthesis added for clarity)
Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches(Jewish people) be broken off, and thou (the Gentile believer), being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.
Romans 11:24 For if thou (the Gentiles) wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree (the Jews): how much more shall these (the Jews), which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

So the olive trees represent the Jews and Christians.
2 olive trees + 2 candlesticks = The Jewish and Christian churches (remember to John Churches weren’t buildings but people). So doesn’t it stand to reason that the two witnesses would be the Jewish and Christian believers?

Did you forget a few scriptures? This is who the two witnesses are.

Rev 11
10 --------- because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.

Zechariah 4
14 So he said, "These are the two anointed ones, who stand beside the Lord of the whole earth."

 

[veteran]

Did you forget a few scriptures? This is who the two witnesses are.

Rev 11
10 --------- because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.

Zechariah 4
14 So he said, "These are the two anointed ones, who stand beside the Lord of the whole earth."

Undeniably the Scripture is pointing to two specific individual prophets appearing in the specific location of Jerusalem. But with the candlesticks it's also pointing to two specific Churches, for the two candlesticks do represent two of the seven candlesticks per our Lord Jesus.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Did you forget a few scriptures? This is who the two witnesses are.

Rev 11
10 --------- because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.

Zechariah 4
14 So he said, "These are the two anointed ones, who stand beside the Lord of the whole earth."

I didn’t forget those Scriptures, but I do hold a different view then you.. Let’s look at the definition of the original Greek word that is translated as prophet in our English bibles.
prophētēs
prof-ay'-tace
From a compound of G4253 and G5346; a foreteller (“prophet”); by analogy an inspired speaker; by extension a poet: - prophet.

Aren’t all believers told to spread the gospel? Shouldn’t all true believers be inspired speakers delivering God’s message? So don’t all believer’s technically fit the definition of the original Greek word translated as prophet in our English translations of Rev11:10?

As for as Zec14 should we throw out sound hermeneutic principles of interpretation in favor of traditionally taught doctrines? Rev does not call the two witnesses the anointed ones (many doctrines do), but instead candlesticks and olive trees.Why should we go to the Old Testament for definitions of Candlesticks when the book of Rev gives us definitions? Isn’t the rule of Scriptural adjacency one of the hermeneutic principles? Doesn’t that rule tell us that if we don’t understand a term to start with the chapter it is in, then if we can’t find the definition in that chapter proceed to the book it is used in then the testament and finally the whole bible? So if we find an acceptable definition in the book the term is used in why go to the Old Testament? Doesn’t Scripture itself warn that following traditional teachings can make the word of God of none effect if those traditions are in error? (Mark7:13) So if we use sound hermeneutic principles then shouldn’t we use the definition for candlesticks that the inspired word of God gives right in Revelation? Shouldn’t we also use the definitions the inspired word of God provides for olive trees in Romans (same Testament)?

 

[veteran]

I didn’t forget those Scriptures, but I do hold a different view then you.. Let’s look at the definition of the original Greek word that is translated as prophet in our English bibles.
prophētēs
prof-ay'-tace
From a compound of G4253 and G5346; a foreteller (“prophet”); by analogy an inspired speaker; by extension a poet: - prophet.

Aren’t all believers told to spread the gospel? Shouldn’t all true believers be inspired speakers delivering God’s message? So don’t all believer’s technically fit the definition of the original Greek word translated as prophet in our English translations of Rev11:10?

As for as Zec14 should we throw out sound hermeneutic principles of interpretation in favor of traditionally taught doctrines? Rev does not call the two witnesses the anointed ones (many doctrines do), but instead candlesticks and olive trees.Why should we go to the Old Testament for definitions of Candlesticks when the book of Rev gives us definitions? Isn’t the rule of Scriptural adjacency one of the hermeneutic principles? Doesn’t that rule tell us that if we don’t understand a term to start with the chapter it is in, then if we can’t find the definition in that chapter proceed to the book it is used in then the testament and finally the whole bible? So if we find an acceptable definition in the book the term is used in why go to the Old Testament? Doesn’t Scripture itself warn that following traditional teachings can make the word of God of none effect if those traditions are in error? (Mark7:13) So if we use sound hermeneutic principles then shouldn’t we use the definition for candlesticks that the inspired word of God gives right in Revelation? Shouldn’t we also use the definitions the inspired word of God provides for olive trees in Romans (same Testament)?

Not to disagree with your view about the candlesticks, but the Zech.4 pattern is... where the association of God's two witnesses being the two "olive trees" originates.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not to disagree with your view about the candlesticks, but the Zech.4 pattern is... where the association of God's two witnesses being the two "olive trees" originates.

I guess it all depends on whether one wants to use sound hermeneutic principles when interpreting Scripture or if they prefer following traditionally taught doctrines. From my perspective ( whether some one else agrees or not is their choice) I feel we are better served to use sound hermeneutic principles, such as the rule of Scriptural adjacency ( That rule states: When you read something you don't understand, first study the surrounding text,
then the chapter, then the book in which that chapter appears, then the testament that contains that book, and finally, relate the verse to the whole Bible. That is one of the rules, and it.s a very good one. In other words ... We don't go to the Old Testament for definitions of NewTestament figures when there are New Testament definitions that fit perfectly) to determine what is meant by candlesticks and olive trees.. Considering there are countless eschatological views out there (and most built in the absence of sound hermeneutic principles) I fear that following traditionally taught doctrines built in the absence of those principles risk doing as Christ warned against in Mark7:13..

 

[veteran]

I guess it all depends on whether one wants to use sound hermeneutic principles when interpreting Scripture or if they prefer following traditionally taught doctrines.

Irrational statement, since following sound hermeneutic principles REQUIRES addressing the Zechariah 4 example in association with the symbols given about the two witnesses of Rev.11.

Here's why...

Zech 4:2-3
2 And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof:
3 And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.
(KJV)

Zech 4:11-14
11 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?
12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.
(KJV)

Rev 11:4
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
(KJV)


Using seminary sorts of phrases like "sound hermeneutic principles" to try and make it appear you know what you're talking about when you don't is not going to help your credibility.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Using seminary sorts of phrases like "sound hermeneutic principles" to try and make it appear you know what you're talking about when you don't is not going to help your credibility.

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures. The branch of theology that deals with biblical exegesis. The rule of Scriptural adjacency is one of those principles and it is a very good one. That rule states: When you read something you don't understand, first study the surrounding text,then the chapter, then the book in which that chapter appears, then the testament that contains that book, and finally, relate the verse to the whole Bible. That is one of the rules, and it.s a very good one. In other words ... We don't go to the Old Testament for definitions of NewTestament figures when there are New Testament definitions that fit perfectly.

I suspect it probably hurts your crediblilty when you criticize people for using sound hermeneutics more then it hurts theirs for using them. As you are led friend as you are led!

 

[veteran]

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures. The branch of theology that deals with biblical exegesis. The rule of Scriptural adjacency is one of those principles and it is a very good one. That rule states: When you read something you don't understand, first study the surrounding text,then the chapter, then the book in which that chapter appears, then the testament that contains that book, and finally, relate the verse to the whole Bible. That is one of the rules, and it.s a very good one. In other words ... We don't go to the Old Testament for definitions of NewTestament figures when there are New Testament definitions that fit perfectly.

I suspect it probably hurts your crediblilty when you criticize people for using sound hermeneutics more then it hurts theirs for using them. As you are led friend as you are led!

I'm not trying to be mean, but using such type phrases don't really prove anything. Where's the 'meat' of God's Word in your argument, like what I posted in comparing the Rev.11 and Zech.4 Scriptures? Are you now angry at me because God gave that comparison in His Word for us to discover?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I'm not trying to be mean, but using such type phrases don't really prove anything. Where's the 'meat' of God's Word in your argument, like what I posted in comparing the Rev.11 and Zech.4 Scriptures? Are you now angry at me because God gave that comparison in His Word for us to discover?

You ask “where’s the meat?” LOL Haven’t I already demonstrated in my earlier posts in this thread that according to Rev1:20 candlesticks are churches(remember churches are people not buildings)? Haven’t I already demonstrated that according to Romans 11 olive trees are Jews and Christians? So according to sound hermeneutic principles and the rule of Scriptural adjacency we have New Testament definitions (the Jewish and Christian churches) for New Testament terms (olive trees and candlesticks). Like I said as you are led friend, if you want to throw sound hermeneutic principles out the window so that you can use Old Testament definitions for New Testament terms that is your choice.

Why I should Ibe angry? It doesn’t bother me because you feel the terms I use or inappropriate. Why does it bother you when others use terms like hermeneutically sound? Is it because it requires you to use a dictionary?

 

[ttruscott]

I like your post and the way you interpret the verse until you attribute: "they will be clothed in burlap" to their clothes.

I really think it means sackcloth and refers to a repentant heart proving them to be sinners and probably rejected for past sin.

<shrug>


GOD bless...

Ted

 

[veteran]

You ask “where’s the meat?” LOL Haven’t I already demonstrated in my earlier posts in this thread that according to Rev1:20 candlesticks are churches(remember churches are people not buildings)? Haven’t I already demonstrated that according to Romans 11 olive trees are Jews and Christians? So according to sound hermeneutic principles and the rule of Scriptural adjacency we have New Testament definitions (the Jewish and Christian churches) for New Testament terms (olive trees and candlesticks). Like I said as you are led friend, if you want to throw sound hermeneutic principles out the window so that you can use Old Testament definitions for New Testament terms that is your choice.

Why I should Ibe angry? It doesn’t bother me because you feel the terms I use or inappropriate. Why does it bother you when others use terms like hermeneutically sound? Is it because it requires you to use a dictionary?

I recognized your support for the candlesticks idea our Lord Jesus gave in Rev.1:20 for Rev.11, but you have refused to recognize the Zech.4 correlation with Rev.11 about God's two witnesses. That's the difference.